“She Wanted US$500 But We Had Agreed On US$20”: Mai Jeremaya Case In New Twist

Two men accused of raping social media sensation Mai Jeremaya say it was not rape—just a deal that went wrong over money.

They insist she agreed to have sex for US$20, but later demanded US$500.

“She wanted US$500 but we had agreed on US$20,” the accused told the court, according to papers filed with the State.

“She knew she was at a lodge for sex,” they added.
H-Metro reports Thabo Blessing Dube (27) and Martin Charlie (25) appeared in court on Monday charged with rape. But the two say the act was consensual and claim Mai Jeremaya later used a private investigator to try and extort money from them.

‘She knew why we were at the lodge’
In court papers, the men claim that Dube acted as a go-between, connecting Charlie with Mai Jeremaya.

“They met at Joina City in town and agreed to have sex for US$20,” the defence says.
From there, they went to a lodge in Eastlea, where Charlie and Mai Jeremaya allegedly had consensual sex.

“She removed her clothes, kissed and had sexual intercourse with Charlie,” the duo claimed.
They also said she bathed afterwards, took the US$20, and left the lodge in a taxi they helped her catch.

Fallout over money

According to the accused, the trouble only began when Mai Jeremaya came back demanding US$500.

“She later sent a private investigator, Detective Kedha, to try and get the money,” their statement reads.
“When we refused, a rape report was then made.”
Mai Jeremaya, a prominent social media figure, waived her right to anonymity and publicly accused the pair in a video that went viral. She gained widespread support online, including from fellow influencer Mai TT.

The case has attracted national attention.

Magistrate questions State’s handling
The State initially did not oppose bail for the accused, but Magistrate Marewanazvo Gofa pushed back, demanding to know why charges of aggravated indecent assault were not included.

“The accused allegedly forced the complainant to give them blow jobs,” she noted.
The State later acknowledged that the facts could justify additional charges.

“It appears that the dominant intention was rape,” read the court submission.
“The same evidence will be used to prove both rape and aggravated indecent assault, so splitting the charges may be unnecessary.”
Despite this, the State insisted there was no reason to deny bail.